See here:
Why you could soon be paying Wall Street investors, Australian bankers, and Spanish builders for the privilege of driving on American roads.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html

Not if I'm paying Austrailian bankers ... but maybe...

time for jan to go?

rmm.

Would these be the ones that have the 50 yard line in the middle? ECB could you give a link to information on these machines?

Cat got your tongue?

Where's the outrage over the transportation chair pushing an idea rejected by 70 percent of the voters?

Can't blame this on the mayor, sweetie.

Where's the sound and the fury from our fearless posters? Too much free wine offered by Viet?

See here:
Why you could soon be paying Wall Street investors, Australian bankers, and Spanish builders for the privilege of driving on American roads.

LH, aren't you the one from Nick Licata's office? I wouldn't be surprised that you're branching out now from old Seattle, anti-outsider populism into all-American, anti-foreigner Lou Dobbs populism. Your use of the terms "Wall Street investors, Australian bankers, and Spanish builders" is very reminiscent of the xenophobia they used to stir up in the 19th century American West against Wall Street and London investors and German and Jewish bankers.

I mean at some point, you and Nick might want to take a look in your respective mirrors and ask, "Do I have any shame?"

Source?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is The Stranger and its ace urban planning "reporter" has no no need for facts.

You nailed it, @9.

I lifted the tag line on the Mother Jones article...

"Why you could soon be paying Wall Street investors, Australian bankers, and Spanish builders for the privilege of driving on American roads."

Not my words, Mojo's words. Lou Dobbs?! What a hoot.

The point is - roads are the historical foundation of PUBLIC property...and the 3Ps can result in private ownership.

Why do you have to be so mean? What objection do you have to my "level of discourse?"

This issue isn't whether investors can make money (not a problem, agreed), the issue is whether the investment leads to privatization of public roads, and what happens when the return on their investment falls short.

Please read the article at the link @1.

I guess my siging up for updates from the movies website was a waste, as I have yet to hear about this :(

Privatizing our roads would be a bad idea even if we couldn't just about be guaranteed that the MegaCorps will get a sweetheart deal that will fuck us over in every imaginable way.
Sadly our state seems to have elevated this to high art (but by no means are alone in this despicable thievery)

"DeFazio's take harkens back to Eisenhower and his vision of a national highway system as vital to economic development, commerce, and even national security. "It's a scam, basically," he says. "And you lose control of your transportation infrastructure. It means you fragment the system ultimately. It just does not make sense for an integrated national transportation system."

The transportation committee staffer echoes DeFazio's broad concerns. "You're replacing a federal-state partnership with a public-private partnership," he says, "and the whole idea of developing a national transportation system may go by the wayside." When asked whether private interests will begin to drive transportation decisions, including when and where roads are constructed, he responded, "Absolutely. They would definitely only go to where the profit is." Just as the creation of a National Highway System promised, in Eisenhower's words, to "change the face of America," so too could its demise.

Ralph Nader, too, has been vocal in opposing the privatization deals. Last February he wrote a scathing letter to Mitch Daniels, comparing the toll road lease to the Louisiana Purchase, "only Indiana is the France of this deal. You are taking a minuscule up-front payment in return for a large downstream private profit to a foreign company which is being handed a captive customer base." Nader says he and other consumer advocates were late to recognize the trend. "Who would have dreamed" that the nation would begin actually selling off its core assets, he told Mother Jones. "That's new. They caught everybody napping."

guilty of not reading it yet - do you know if the states are prevented from building competing transit or roads?

"Indeed, private road operators often insist on noncompete clauses that limit governments from expanding nearby roads. In 2003, Orange County bought back the lease for a set of pay-to-drive express lanes in the median of Route 91, just so it could finally expand the adjacent road. Toll road companies can even get governments to do their enforcement for them: In July 2004, the consortium that owns Toronto's 407 etr, a 67-mile highway that relies on transponders and cameras to collect tolls, sued the provincial government to force it to deny license plate renewals to motorists who hadn't paid their tolls. In the end, the consortium, which included mig and Cintra, was successful.

:)

My first impulse on hearing that Nader is against it is that it MUST be good, but we can't let knee-jerkism (tm) lead us down this path...

This is the way that Nader truly is a spoiler, anything he comes out against is bound to get support whether it deserves it due to his and his followers well deserved wing-nut reputation, and anything he comes out in favour of me might as well kiss goodbye.

What the left really needs is an assassination squad...

Find out how many stoplights on Alaskan Way were in the study. Find out more about rebuilding SR-99 under Elliott and Western Avenues. Ask about doing a 4-lane rather than 6-lane study, including a 1-way frontage road northbound just east of Alaskan Way.

I'll wager Crunican is up to no good.